You wrote: "I don't agree with your definition of government. If people agree peacefully to adhere to a set of rules, they have effectively formed a government, too."
Now that's a good point isn't it. I'm so accustomed to people in government doing everything by force that I no longer even consider the possibility of government by consent. OK I'll allow it. :)
So here's the thing. I will support a government that protects life and property from aggression, so long as the people in that government are not initiating the aggression themselves.
In short, I don't want anyone to commit theft or murder, including people with badges or uniforms.
You wrote: "Obviously people running free do not fix the world's problems. They form dictatorships, exploit resources, fight wars and so on. Your condition of "peacefully" does not work out - people are not peaceful."
Yes. However, people are only able to do those things when too much power is concentrated in their hands. Power corrupts, yadda yadda.
You wrote: "except that you think markets create properties and I claim governments (or agreements of people) create properties"
OK, but at this point I have amended my stance so we're in agreement here. Because if the people calling themselves "government" themselves respect life and property and deal with others on the basis of mutual consent, then, by my definition anyway, they are part of the free market.
You wrote: "Air and sea pollution - how do you want to solve that, without all the governments in the world agreeing on property rules for those things? And that is not a market thing."
I want to solve that the same way it's been solved for decades: through technological innovation. For example, a modern car emits far fewer pollutants than one from the 1970s.
A lot of pro-government extremists like to claim that's only because government forced the manufacturers to make more efficient cars, but I don't buy that. People are motivated to produce and use clean and efficient cars, but the only way to achieve that is through the application of financial and intellectual capital. People in government always like to come in from behind and claim victory for themselves, as if without them nothing good would have ever happened. That's a propaganda game and I'll have no part of it.
You wrote: "As for the elephants, how do the property owners defend against the poachers? I strongly suspect guns are involved."
You are correct sir. If necessary one must defend life and property with severe force. Fortunately in many cases the mere threat of such force is enough to prevent an attack. In most cases where a gun is used in self-defense, it is not even fired. Therefore it is not true to say that the only purpose of a gun is to kill people.
You wrote: "that is a fundamental problem of the human condition. There is not enough stuff to go around."
I don't buy the Malthusian argument for one moment. The Earth, and the universe at large, is a place of massive abundance, a cornucopia. People will produce good things precisely to the degree that they are free to enjoy the rewards of producing them. Yes, it is true that they must "exploit resources" to do so. But that's such a loaded phrase. I just say "using things". People must use things in order to produce other things.
And yes, the production of good things always produces some bad things as well, and we call this "waste". For example, when you eat some food, it produces energy and vitality for you. It also produces waste in the form of feces. That will always be so; it is decreed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
You might argue that people are lazy and sloppy by nature and will always go about spreading waste everywhere. But there are a few social dynamics working against that.
First, economics. Very often one can save money by reducing waste. But again this requires technological innovation to achieve those gains at the margin, and I maintain that free uncoerced people are best able to summon the financial and intellectual capital needed for that.
Second, property rights. If you try dumping your garbage on someone else's property, you might find yourself facing the business end of a shotgun. But let's hope it doesn't come to that.
Third, reputation. If you operate a factory and dump toxic chemicals in the nearby water supply, you may find yourself excoriated and your products widely boycotted. Most people are not sociopaths and will therefore care very much about this outcome. For actual sociopaths, see my first point above about shotguns.
You might argue that we need government to protect the little guys against big bad corporations who don't care about those market dynamics or pathetic bands of peasants showing up with pitchforks. Now if we're talking about a "government" in your sense of the word, to which I have agreed, meaning a group of people who protect life and property without attacking those very things in the process, then I can see the possible need for it. The "little guys" would in effect be outsourcing that business end of the shotgun to a better equipped and trained group. I have no problem with that. It's even a market function.
But where the whole government experiment goes awry is when that group itself becomes the principal threat to life and property -- and as you say, this happens repeatedly throughout history, with the institution of dictatorships and the instigation of wars. By some estimates, upwards of 200 million people were slaughtered by governments in the 20th century. With those odds, I'll take my chances with anarchy any day.
The key is, somehow, to prevent such massive aggregations of forceful power into the hands of a few human beings. So-called "democracy" does not help here, because the throngs often support the formation of such dangerous power because they are convinced those in power will give them something for nothing. As Bastiat put it: "The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
Having diagnosed the problem, I cannot propose any cure other than for each individual to take it to heart and live according to the principle of non-aggression in his or her own life. Do not seek to live at the expense of others, and do not associate with those who do. Other than that, I got nuthin.
You wrote: "For example attractive mates might always remain a limited resource."
Yeah. People need to make more beautiful babies. Many ask "why would I want to bring another child into this world?" Unfortunately I see their point. I often sound like an optimist, but deep down I have this grim suspicion that things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. To paraphrase Churchill (no hero of mine btw), people will always eventually do the right thing, after they exhaust all other alternatives.